UCLA at No. 52

reads like someone with lots of details making what he feels is a "logical assumption" - specifically that last year's team struggled to master a new offense in the coaching staff's first year.

It's frustrating, however, to read all those comments about it. He does eventually get around to mentioning that the OLine was terribly weak but knowing that somehow failed to cause him to question his multiple repetitions of his initial conclusion. That badly misses the main point:

Poor OLine = no running game and no time for a QB to allow plays to develop, read and throw. Learning the offense - which wasn't nearly as difficult an offense as the somewhat twitchy offense under Karl Dorrell - was hardly the main problem - it was a whole lot more basic than that.

improvement this year won't be because they are learning the offense, either. A better performance by the OLine will lead to improvements throughout the offense. It all starts with the line when it comes to offense.

Brian,
What do you think of the New York Times ranking of UCLA? Should be higher, lower, or does it look about right?

the article didn't say all that much.

this I do not get:
I believe U.C.L.A. will reach bowl eligibility, but I don’t think this team has any chance of cracking the top half of the Pac-10.

The top half? no chance? I think Cal and SUC are the top 2. Oregon is up there but are replacing a ton of guys. Same with OSU. Assuming those are the top 4, Who else is so much better than us that we cannot finish higher then them? Stanford? Arizona? Asu? The Washington schools? that statement is just plain idiotic.

UCLA is 60-51 since 2000, 9 games over .500
Cal is 63-48 since 2000, 15 games over .500
OSU is 72-40 over the same period, 32 games over .500
Oregon is 77-35 since 2000, 42 games over .500
SC is 93-22, 71 games over .500

No one should be picking the Bruins at the top of the conference. If not for a 10-2 record in 2005, we are a .500 football team this decade.